CPU Physx (Need ATI Users here)

[midrim]

Hi, I'm just wondering how PhysX performs on an AMD card (CPU PhysX, obviously) on PhysX demanding games such as BL2 and Metro:LL, preferably on boss fights. If you happen to own an amd card can you tell me how much fps you get on high physx?

 

I'm still deciding whether I should get a GTX 780 and a 4670k and let the 780 do the PhysX or an R9 290 and a 4770k and let the i7 do the Physx.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

p.s. screenshots would be nice, otherwise amd fans are just gonna give me high numbers lol

[ERSCreeper]

CPU will struggle with PhysX. I would get a GTX 780 and an i5.

[PassionFruit]

GPU is way better for Physx, just go with that.

[Wiflare]

I don't notice physx much, really.
if you do get the r9 290, just get a 4670k and spend the leftover monies elsewhere

[Scia]

Hi, I'm just wondering how PhysX performs on an AMD card (CPU PhysX, obviously) on PhysX demanding games such as BL2 and Metro:LL, preferably on boss fights. If you happen to own an amd card can you tell me how much fps you get on high physx?

 

I'm still deciding whether I should get a GTX 780 and a 4670k and let the 780 do the PhysX or an R9 290 and a 4770k and let the i7 do the Physx.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

p.s. screenshots would be nice, otherwise amd fans are just gonna give me high numbers lol

 

PhysX isn't very commonly used. Never has fully been adapted to be featured in most games. My advise is get what ever card you prefer [personally I prefer AMD, had nothing but trouble with my 680 SLI last year -.-].

[midrim]

Hmmm you guys seem to prefer the green side...

 

But seriously, aside from people that keep saying it won't work/ it will lag I've never really seen proof.

 

Meanwhile, a little snooping gave me this:

http://physxinfo.com/news/9425/borderlands-2-is-cpu-capable-of-handling-the-physx-effects/

http://www.techspot.com/review/733-batman-arkham-origins-benchmarks/page4.html

 

They first and last links used a 2500k and they showed great gameplay even on CPU PhysX.

Now I'm thinking of an i5 + R9 290 like Wiflare said.

[Humbug]

don't use physx. It's bad for the gaming industry, just turn it off.

[Jerakl]

don't use physx. It's bad for the gaming industry, just turn it off.

Elaborate.

[Analog]

It depends. In the past I have tested it on a AMD CPU (1090T) and then on a (i7 990X). The AMD struggled so much with the Physx that the game (Mirror's Edge) was completely unplayable. The i7, while performing better than the AMD, still didn't manage to impress me. If you want Physx, get a NVIDIA GPU.

[Humbug]

Elaborate.

PhysX allows GPU hardware physics simulation on Nvidia hardware only, with no opportunity for competition even if the competition's hardware is technically capable of the same thing. Hence- wrong direction for the industry, it opposes everything that PC gaming is about.

[PutuLips]

PhysX allows GPU hardware physics simulation on Nvidia hardware only, with no opportunity for competition even if the competition's hardware is technically capable of the same thing. Hence- wrong direction for the industry, it opposes everything that PC gaming is about.

I think PhysX is awesome. It adds another layer of dynamic visuals to a game that doesn't look unbelievably fake and annoying. Just because one side of the market doesn't support PhysX doesn't mean that the other side shouldn't have it. Both should have it. AMD needs to just suck up their pride and get PhysX support on their GPUs, and Nvidia the same with some of the features AMD provides.

 

Hi, I'm just wondering how PhysX performs on an AMD card (CPU PhysX, obviously) on PhysX demanding games such as BL2 and Metro:LL, preferably on boss fights. If you happen to own an amd card can you tell me how much fps you get on high physx?

 

I'm still deciding whether I should get a GTX 780 and a 4670k and let the 780 do the PhysX or an R9 290 and a 4770k and let the i7 do the Physx.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

p.s. screenshots would be nice, otherwise amd fans are just gonna give me high numbers lol

At the moment, I find Nvidia looks far more appealing than AMD (coming from someone with an AMD system), as most of their products use less power, are quieter, cooler and (sometimes) cheaper. There are also more features available, and the drivers are better than AMD.

Seeing as your purpose for these cards is just gaming, I'd recommend the GTX 780. If you were doing some work with editing, then your choice between OpenCL and CUDA would be a huge factor.

CPU PhysX is rape for your system. Borderlands 2 on high physx runs at 15fps for me because the physx only runs on 2 cores and bottlenecks the hell out of it.

[midrim]

Wasn't AMD permitted to use PhysX for the PS4's Jaguar? Anyway, if AMD were to add PhysX to their main line of cards they would need to cough up a lot of $$ to use Nvidia's shit.

Went to the my local store, they ran out stock on 780's both reference and not. So for my first rig its an i5 with an R9. Let's see how much AMD and intel can impress me.

[Lord_Kitty]

AMD needs to just suck up their pride and get PhysX support on their GPUs, and Nvidia the same with some of the features AMD provides.

 

 

Actually, its Nvidia that needs to suck up their pride and allow AMD to use PhysX. AMD is always open with the things they develop. For example, TressFX is available for Nvidia GPU. Mantle too would have been available for Nvidia after some time, but it likely won't happen since DX12 is doing the same thing as Mantle.

 

Also, AMD optimization libraries for games are openly available for Nvidia to read. This way, they can patch their drivers to optimize some games and close the performance gap in an AMD optimized game. Nvidia does not allow such thing.